On 12/10/07, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at eds.org> wrote:
>> (What is the "hold" inlet, by the way?)
>
It's a hot inlet that has been misspelled...
It would be really nice to be able to have inlets for the sql placeholders,
> but I couldn't think of a clean way to do it. We could try the dynamic
> allocation like you say here, I don't know if I have a specific objection to
> it, but it could get weird. Since the SQL inlet has to be cold to support
> the comma hack, then these dynamic inlets shouldn't be hot since they are
> the right of a cold inlet. But that's not a big deal.
>
And if you want placeholders to have inlets, then we are back to putting the
SQL into the object creation arguments, like:
[sqlite insert into table (id, name) values (:id, :name)]
While I don't think it is a bad idea, it does restrict a particular instance
of a database object to only a single type of message, and it would have to
be done at creation time of the object.
Should we allow both methods of entering SQL? One done at creation time, the
other one done on the fly?
Also, I don't know if any objects do this kind of dynamic inlet creation
> after the object itself has been instantiated. It might not even be
> possible. I figure that you can easily make a subpatch or abstraction
> around the SQL message generation, then manage the inlets there. Perhaps
> not ideal, but it's not difficult to do and follows existing practice.
>
I would think that an object having the ability to change its inlets on the
fly would NOT be possible, as the inlets may change so much, as to lose a
connection when it is recreated.
OR, could we possibly do something like this
[sqlite :id(f) :name(s)]
Which would create an instance with 4 inlets, the first 'hot' inlet would
accept all the control messages, the next (x number) would represent the
bound inlets for the placeholders, and the last would be the inlet for the
incoming SQL statement. Would it be an error if the incoming SQL statement
didn't have the same placeholders defined in it? Or should it be allowed to
operate as any other?
As for the SQL binding, I was thinking it would happen inside of the object,
> binding the placeholder names to the selectors. As long as there wasn't any
> new input on the SQL inlet, then the SQL statement wouldn't need to be
> recompiled.
>
My thought too...
Another question I just thought of it how to handle returning multiple
> results from s single query. If it followed the [textfile] style, then you
> would have to bang to get each individual result, then keep banging until
> you get a bang on the status/second outlet, meaning the query was done. I
> think this could work.
>
This is already what I have been doing. Basically, as we are working now,
the SQL would get input on the right inlet, then if any binding were needed,
that would be done, and when the next bang occurs, the query is submitted,
and the first result set is returned. Any subsequent bang would return the
next result set. And when the result sets have been exhausted, it would send
a bang out the "status" outlet to indicate the sets are done.
Mike
.hc
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
>>>>
--
Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we
have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal.
—Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071210/14127fcc/attachment.htm>